REACHing for less toxic alternatives

Op-Ed by Joel Tickner

Boston Globe
July 28, 2008

Lead in lipstick, phthalates in toys, Bisphenol-a in baby bottles, flame retardants in breast milk, Teflon in people's bodies. What do these have in common? They are consequences of the disjointed systems we have in the United States to regulate and manage hazards posed by toxic chemicals in everyday products.

There is growing scientific evidence linking toxic chemicals in our air, water, food, homes, and bodies to chronic health effects in humans and ecosystems. Environmental health scientists and policy experts agree that flaws in the design of both chemical substances and our regulatory framework are to blame. By passing a "safer alternatives" bill, state lawmakers can begin to address this.

The European Union recently instituted a broad overhaul of its chemicals regulation. Known by its acronym, the REACH program will require that firms manufacturing or importing chemicals or chemical-containing products into Europe understand their health and environmental hazards and seek permission to continue using chemicals of "high concern." The US government, along with the chemical industry, fought vigorously against REACH. In this country, other than piecemeal, ineffectual, and costly efforts to address the chemical du jour through single chemical restrictions, there has been little initiative to overhaul our decades-old federal chemicals management framework, despite ample evidence of its limitations.

By contrast, some US companies and states are embracing REACH principles. Dell and Wal-Mart are initiating their own policies requiring suppliers to provide data on chemical safety and avoid certain chemicals. Maine and Washington have passed laws that would require companies to disclose dangerous chemicals in children's products and seek to substitute those of high concern. California is about to launch a major overhaul of chemicals regulation. Michigan is encouraging research, education, and development of safer chemicals and products by adopting "green chemistry" approaches.

Massachusetts once led the nation in advancing safer chemicals through its landmark 1989 Toxics Use Reduction Act. The law requires that Massachusetts firms report chemical use and waste and examine alternative processes to reduce toxic chemical use. A small fee on chemicals funds free technical assistance to firms and a research, training, and technical support program at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell. The results of this approach: Firms have reduced use of dangerous chemicals by more than 40 percent while saving money.

Despite its successes, the law does not require substitution of problem chemicals in products sold in Massachusetts. The "safer alternatives" bill, recently passed unanimously by the Massachusetts Senate and awaiting a vote in the House, would enable the state to track and require carefully planned substitution of the most problematic chemicals when safer options are available. The bill creates a business assistance program, timelines, and mechanisms to support substitution and enhance innovation resulting in safer products. It provides flexibility so that firms facing challenges in finding safer alternatives can obtain technical support or waivers for particular uses.

Some industry trade groups claim this would be too costly and drive firms out of state. There is little evidence that this is the result of new environmental laws. In fact, a recent Northeastern University report found that, despite existing regulations, manufacturing is a growing part of the state's economy. In other states, executive department officials are actively collaborating with legislators to advance creative, visionary policy. As the Massachusetts Legislature moves the safer alternatives bill forward, the Patrick administration should lend its support.

The bill offers Massachusetts an opportunity to regain its leadership in encouraging innovation in safer chemicals and products. In an era when states are recognizing the economic benefits of clean tech and green jobs, the Commonwealth would take the lead by promoting green chemistry and increasing the ability of firms to compete in an increasingly environmentally friendly global marketplace. A recent Milken Institute report found that due to its scientific and technology assets, Massachusetts is in the best position of any state to achieve high-quality economic growth. By actively advancing safer chemicals and products, the state can achieve this growth while providing green manufacturing jobs and health and environmental benefits to its citizens.

Joel Tickner is assistant professor in the Department of Community Health and Sustainability at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell.

© Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company